To download as a PDF click here - US Army Center Of Military History

102 so u R c e s o f we a p o n sy s T e m s In n o v a T Io n In T h e depaR TmenT o f defense
from OSR’s funding program. 96 That same year, the Air Staff commissioned
a laboratory utilization study (under the direction of Maj. Gen. Kenneth
Chapman, assistant deputy chief of staff for research and development) to
assess the current operational status of the AFSC laboratories and recommend
procedures for the most effective long-term allocation of R&D resources. Out
of this review emerged specific proposals to realign the in-house laboratories
to focus primarily on product development and, at the same time, increase the
percentage of total R&D outsourced to the private sector.
In its effort to reduce in-house R&D, the Chapman Committee focused on the
laboratories previously attached to the now-defunct Office of Aerospace Research.
In 1975, the Aerospace Research Laboratory closed, and the four remaining
development laboratories at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base—flight dynamics,
materials, aeropropulsion, and avionics—merged into the newly named Air Force
Wright Aeronautical Laboratories (AFWAL). This organizational unit provided
technical support to AFSC’s aeronautical systems division. 97
Given the critical role of electronic command, control, and communication
technologies in strategic and tactical air operations, the Chapman Committee
had originally proposed that the R&D supporting these functions should
move from the Rome Air Development Center to the Cambridge Research
Laboratories at Hanscom Air Force Base. The committee also recommended that
the Special Weapons Center at Kirtland Air Force Base take over the operation
of Cambridge’s geophysics directorate. Opposition from disgruntled laboratory
employees, local officials, and the politicians representing the affected districts in
Congress, however, prompted the Air Force to scrap this plan in favor of a less
disruptive alternative. Rome received a reprieve and became the development
center for command, control, and communications equipment, reporting directly
to AFSC’s electronics system division. 98 Cambridge, which employed more
physicists than any other laboratory in the Air Force Systems Command at the
time, was not so fortunate. Early in 1976, the geophysics directorate transferred
to Kirtland, and the remaining electronics R&D programs—constituting the
old electronics directorate—moved to Rome. 99
96 At the time, OSR operated six directorates: aerospace sciences, chemical sciences, electronic and
solid-state sciences, life sciences, mathematical and information sciences, and physics. “AFOSR Focuses on
Pertinent Research,” Aviation Week and Space Technology 101 (15 July 1974): 142.
97 “New Group Coordinates Lab Activities,” Aviation Week and Space Technology 105 (19 July 1976):
171. See also M. L. Yaffee, “Materials Lab Gears to Meet User Needs,” Aviation Week and Space Technology
105 (19 July 1976): 177–80.
98 “Rome Air Development Center Deactivated in USAF Cutbacks,” Aviation Week and Space
Technology 101 (2 December 1974): 26; A. I. Robinson, “Basic Research in the Air Force: A Tale of Two
Laboratories,” Science 189 (12 September 1975): 862–65.
99 “New Lab Geared to Support of Divisions,” Aviation Week and Space Technology 105 (19 July
1976): 215–17; “OSR Given Single Manager Role for All AFSC Basic Research,” Aviation Week and
Space Technology 105 (19 July 1976): 226, 229. Only managerial responsibility of Cambridge’s former
geophysics directorate was assigned to Kirtland. The laboratory facilities remained at Hanscom. In line
with the revised R&D policies set down by the Air Staff, the newly named geophysics laboratory focused
less on exploratory research, which was increasingly outsourced to private-sector institutions, in favor of
application-oriented development work. See “Geophysics Laboratory Stressing Development,” Aviation
Week and Space Technology 110 (29 January 1979): 231–33.